It's a phenomenom that I've only come across on TSR. If they genuinely want a "classless, moneyless, stateless" society then why not just advocate anarchism and be done with it?

I get the feeling they're employing what can only be described as ideological bipolarism to run rings around their critics. When we point out that they're in favour of an all powerful state and a dictatorship of the proletariat they smugly counter with their supposed commitment to state abolition. As if in order to lose weight and get skinny you need to turn into a morbidly obese fatso first.

You don't understand communism though. A stateless, classless society is communism. Everything which comes before the stateless, classless society i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat is the period in which a capitalist society prepares itself for communism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism. The difference between anarchism and communism is that anarchists believe in statelessness straight away whereas typical communism is based on transition.

(Original post by JCC-MGS)
You don't understand communism though. A stateless, classless society is communism. Everything which comes before the stateless, classless society i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat is the period in which a capitalist society prepares itself for communism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism. The difference between anarchism and communism is that anarchists believe in statelessness straight away whereas typical communism is based on transition.

Indeed, communism is as much about equality as anarchism is. Indeed, if you look at the october revolution, as the previous poster said, there was a transition, which is required, by a vanguard party that basically overthrows the dictatorship, if in this instance you are referring to anarchism, communism would exist true, but it wouldn't be the structured, socio-political version of communism that would so arise from having a gradual change.

(Original post by JCC-MGS)You don't understand communism though. A stateless, classless society is communism. Everything which comes before the stateless, classless society i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat is the period in which a capitalist society prepares itself for communism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism. The difference between anarchism and communism is that anarchists believe in statelessness straight away whereas typical communism is based on transition.

Straight off the bat, 10 points.

I understand communism, it's just that comrades are unwilling to come to terms with the real world implications of their ideology. So they claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to implement communist ideals but when the vanguard go power mad and start lashing out (for the greater good, of course) we're told that this has absolutely nothing to do with Marx's vision!

Let's put it this way, that claim wouldn't stand up in a court of law. The dictatorship 'transition' is part and parcel of communist ideology, I find it unbelievable that hard left-wingers cannot accept this.

I understand communism, it's just that comrades are unwilling to come to terms with the real world implications of their ideology. So they claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to implement communist ideals but when the vanguard go power mad and start lashing out (for the greater good, of course) we're told that this has absolutely nothing to do with Marx's vision!

Let's put it this way, that claim wouldn't stand up in a court of law. The dictatorship 'transition' is part and parcel of communist ideology, I find it unbelievable that hard left-wingers cannot accept this.

I know it's part of communist ideology, that's what I just said. The transitional dictatorship is what makes communism separate to anarchism. Glad we've sorted that out.

I understand communism, it's just that comrades are unwilling to come to terms with the real world implications of their ideology. So they claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to implement communist ideals but when the vanguard go power mad and start lashing out (for the greater good, of course) we're told that this has absolutely nothing to do with Marx's vision!

Let's put it this way, that claim wouldn't stand up in a court of law. The dictatorship 'transition' is part and parcel of communist ideology, I find it unbelievable that hard left-wingers cannot accept this.

I'm a left winger, and I advocate communism xD It's sort of, a modern liberal utopia to me at least haha

(Original post by Callum828)
I've never understood how anarchists can be anti-capitalist, when, in the absence of government, what you get is ruthless capitalism.

In the same vein, how do anarchists oppose government cuts? I thought they were against government?

Yes, I too find this quite puzzling. General confusion all round then, or perhaps they're of the mindset that 'my enemy's enemy must be my friend' so naturally gravitate towards the Occupy/Socialist Worker crowd.

The distinction comes from the two main schools of communists - Marxists and anarcho-communists (these are explicitly anarchists of course). In my opinion, Marx has been pretty distorted by Leninists, and for some reason anarcho-communists have been happy to go along with this and propound distortions of Marx (though unlike the Leninists, they claim to oppose these supposed positions of Marx). But apart from a few minor things, I don't see much difference between Marx and the anarchists.

(Original post by chefdave)
When we point out that they're in favour of an all powerful state and a dictatorship of the proletariat

And Marx and Engels both said that what they meant by 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was something like the Paris Commune.

As if in order to lose weight and get skinny you need to turn into a morbidly obese fatso first.

I understand communism, it's just that comrades are unwilling to come to terms with the real world implications of their ideology. So they claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to implement communist ideals but when the vanguard go power mad and start lashing out (for the greater good, of course) we're told that this has absolutely nothing to do with Marx's vision!

Let's put it this way, that claim wouldn't stand up in a court of law. The dictatorship 'transition' is part and parcel of communist ideology, I find it unbelievable that hard left-wingers cannot accept this.

You just supported his point?

The dictatorship period is what Communists advocate as a transitionary period before total Communism. Anarchism advocates getting rid of the state completely and immediately; Communism does not.

(Original post by Callum828)
I've never understood how anarchists can be anti-capitalist, when, in the absence of government, what you get is ruthless capitalism.

Not at all. On the contrary, capitalism is very much a creature of the state. The state is necessary for capitalism to exist.

In the same vein, how do anarchists oppose government cuts? I thought they were against government?

The government not spending money doesn't mean it's not involved. The government props up the whole capitalist system. The cuts that anarchists oppose are generally the proposed cuts of social welfare - the things that have been won by popular struggle against the state and capitalism.

The dictatorship period is what Communists advocate as a transitionary period before total Communism. Anarchism advocates getting rid of the state completely and immediately; Communism does not.

I don't think I did support his point becuase when I point out that the USSR, China, North Korea etc etc are all communist inspired dictatorships commies try and wriggle out of it highlight the apparent 'stateless' nature of their ideology. This has given them an enternal get out of jail free card that prevents the hard left from coming to terms with what they really advocate: an all powerful Orwellian superstate that has scant regard for human rights.

(Original post by anarchism101)
Communists are anarchists in my view, by definition.

The distinction comes from the two main schools of communists - Marxists and anarcho-communists (these are explicitly anarchists of course). In my opinion, Marx has been pretty distorted by Leninists, and for some reason anarcho-communists have been happy to go along with this and propound distortions of Marx (though unlike the Leninists, they claim to oppose these supposed positions of Marx). But apart from a few minor things, I don't see much difference between Marx and the anarchists.

And Marx and Engels both said that what they meant by 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was something like the Paris Commune.

Well done, that's the contradiction in Leninism.

It all sounds a bit biblical to me with different factions fighting over the true meaning of God's Marx's words. Perhaps this is why commies are trigger happy when it comes to employing the old..."but we're misunderstood" line, he was such a prolofic writer you could use his work to justify almost any political idelogy. I've even seen excepts of Das Capital that openly support the Georgist critique of the capitalist economy, but Marx and George were at loggerheads when they were alive!

The sheeple you speak of don't know what they want, whatever the Guardian tells them is best I guess (and I say this as an openly left wing Guardian reader).

Look I am exactly the opposite of a communist but that's silly, I don't actually agree entirely with chef here but Communism is different to anarchism is one simple way, Communists, once a violent revolution has suceeded, wish to install complete state control at the hand of the proletariat (vanguards) OR to be put in place by people who represent the working class, because the working class do not have the ability to do govern and have not fully realised class consciousness, the Bolssheviks. That is inter communism really, Marx vs Marxist-leninist political practace.

Anyway, yes, communists wish to have a completely nationalised state which then disolves into a stateless, moneyless society with seperate communes accross the world (or country is you are a trotskyite). Stalin advocated communism in one country but wished to keep state control completely with no disolvement.

Anarchists wish to bring down capitalism and the state simultaniously whilst not implementing a proletariat dictatorship. They wish to just go straight to a stateless, moneyless society. The other difference is that under this, beacuse there was no dictatorship, communes are not the only form of society available. Under initial anarchist stateless(ism), you can operate collectives, co-ops, gift economies, Mutual aid economies and council communes, aswell as communes.

Anarcho-communists fuse communism and anarchism by wishing to solely establish communes but without a dictatorship to start, mutual aid and co-ops are not allowed, no market mechanisms are also allowed (an anarchist free market). Kropotkin baically said if you do not work within the commune you should be exiled and/or you should recieve no mutual aid, you have to be a worker.

The original anarchist, proudhon, was, TBH, the only one who advocated that free markets could be set up and capital could still exist, but private property can or cannot be individual or collective. Anarchism has moved away from that (proudhon's ideas are now known as mutualism) as they do not want market mechanisms or capital or the option of private property, they still advocate collective property, mutual aid and co-ops though, where anarcho-communists do not advocate co-ops or mutual aid.

I will edit this to be less confusing if anyone wishes, I think its a mess myself.

Sorry to generalise and upset and leftists on here but after studying anarchism for quite a while now the stereotype that the left is incoherant and there is no clear, unified goal is perpetuated most under communism and anarchism.

You guys should have just stuck with proudhon for anarchism. And I wish marx was never born to branch it all further.